Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral value by stating that templates are structure not copy and that every block arrives empty—an important expectation for the agent. It doesn't describe output formatting, but the output schema and annotations lower that burden.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences: core definition first, then usage pointer to add_screen, then the essential behavioral caveat about empty blocks. There is no filler, repetition, or irrelevant detail—each sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter list endpoint, the description covers what templates are, how they are grouped, how to use a returned key, and their empty-content trait. The output schema covers return structure. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly say 'returns a list,' but the title and overall phrasing make that clear.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific detail because none is needed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies ready-made screen layouts organized by family (present, interact, assess), clearly naming the resource and its structure. It doesn't explicitly use a verb like 'lists' or 'returns,' but the title plus 'Ready-made screen layouts' makes the purpose evident. It also distinguishes from siblings like add_screen by noting the keys are meant for that tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives explicit downstream guidance: 'Pass a key to add_screen to start from one,' which tells the agent how to use the results. The family groupings also help the agent pick a template category. It doesn't name alternatives or exclusions, but for a simple list tool the usage context is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.